HKSAR v. Ng Yiu Ming and Another

DCCC 756/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 756 OF 2014

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.D1 and D2 plead guilty to one joint charge of attempted burglary.

2.The facts admitted by both defendants reveal that on 29 June 2014, the proprietor of a restaurant particularised in the charge reported to the police that someone had tampered with one of the CCTV cameras at the restaurant.  When he left the restaurant later on the same day, he checked and locked the rear metal grille of the restaurant at the rear lane. 

3.The police arranged an operation nearby on the same evening.  At around 11.28 pm D1 and D2 were seen entering the rear lane near the restaurant.  It is admitted that they used a drill trying to break open the rear metal grille of the restaurant but to no avail.  They left the rear lane at around 11.37 pm. 

4.Police officers checked the metal grille and found a hole on the lock.  D1 and D2 were later stopped and arrested.  A drill and a hexagonal key were seized from them.  Under caution, they denied the offence.

5.D1 is aged 50.  He has nine records of court appearance for conviction of 10 charges.  He has no criminal record for dishonest offences.

6.D2 is aged 42.  He has 15 records of court appearance for conviction of 15 charges, three of which were for attempted burglary and another five for other dishonest offences.

7.The personal and family background of both defendants are unremarkable.

8.A written submission for mitigation and a letter of mitigation written by the 1st defendant are submitted to the court.

9.Mr Li, solicitor for both defendants, submits that the attempt was unsuccessful.  He says the restaurant suffered no loss apart from the damage to the metal grille and no violence was used by the defendants.  Accepting D2 has a long list of criminal convictions, Mr Li urges the court not to enhance the sentence of D2 for his previous records.

10.The conventional starting point for a single burglary of non-domestic premises by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 2½ years’ imprisonment.  Having considered all the circumstances including that it was an unsuccessful crime committed by two offenders, I find 2½ years’ imprisonment an appropriate starting point in the case.

11.I have considered whether to enhance the sentence of D2 on the principle of persistent offender.  As the last dishonest offence committed by D2 was back in 2001, I am just persuaded by Mr Li not to enhance the sentence of D2. 

12.Each of the defendants will have one-third reduction of sentence for their plea of guilty.  There are no other mitigating factors in the case.  D1 and D2 are therefore each sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.